Compare the basic dimensions of a current Camry and a ’56 Chevy, and there’s not all that much difference. But if you extend that to pickups from the same time frames, the difference is a bit more contrasting. And in other news, it turns out that the world is round. But the real story of this GMC pickup is something else altogether, something that can’t be seen in this shot.

Pity the poor designers whose task it was to differentiate their product from the Chevys. In modern times, they mostly gave up. But back in the fifties, they gave it the old ugly-stick try.

The new 1955½ Chevy pickups wore some of the most handsome faces ever, clean and classic, inspired by the ’55 Chevy’s Ferrari-esque front end. Where do you go from there to make it look unique? Not the direction GMC took.Oh well, after all these decades, the GMC’s bull-dog jowls are amusing, if one doesn’t take the desecration too seriously.

From this angle, one would have to be a good tailgate reader to tell that it’s not a Chevy.

Here’s where the GMC shines, though. Its dashboard is decidedly better, and completely different from the Chevy, with a totally different shape and look. Those gauges have a fresh, rather sixties look to them.

I’d better show the Chevy, in case some of you aren’t familiar with its fan-shaped gauge cluster, also influenced by the ’55 Chevy car line’s similar look. BTW, that’s obviously not a stock wheel.

Under the hood, GMC were decidedly better endowed than the comparable Chevy; maybe that’s what that tough face was all about. For that matter, maybe GMC was just way ahead of times, given the aggressive faces so common now, especially on the Ford trucks.

This was before the GMC V6 came along, so the venerable but very tough 270 inch Jimmy straight six was the base engine, making 120 hp at 3200 rpm(!). Lovers of low-rpm torque-masters; look no further. The V8 was essentially a Pontiac unit, a 316 incher making 180 hp. Both engines were substantially bigger than the comparable Chevy’s. And the automatic was a genuine four-speed Hydramatic, not a Powerglide. So the GMC lives up to the classic line of “don’t judge a truck by its grille”, or something like that.

26 Comments

In fairness fo size comparison, you are comparing a 4×4 250 series truck with a crew cab and an 8ft bed, to a 6ft bed light duty, regular cab truck, and the new truck has been lifted too to add to that, I’d bet that there probably isn’t much of a difference in size between a regular cab short bed truck and this truck.

it all depends where you live, what the dealers feel they can sell, and what they order. There are quite a few regular cab, short bed new full size trucks roaming the City and County of Honolulu – not all fleet specials, save for the hordes of all-white Fords in stock at Kalihi’s Honolulu Ford . . . .

My father bought a new 1956 GMC in this color combination. It had the [Pontiac] V8 + the Hydramatic.
This is missing the “100” floating in the grille space.
The hubcaps are from the 1970s; chrome grille came with chrome hubcaps.
The GMC on the tailgate was reflective + had “wings”.
It bothered me that it had that nice dashboard [lots of CHROME!!], but with the “You cheap bastard” blank spot in the large circle next to the speedometer. I think it was supposed to have a tach or a clock or a vacuum gauge or something there.

As a sidenote, the 1957 Chevy truck took a good deal from that GMC grille.

I’d never seen the interior of a Jimmy of that era – although I knew that the 1960s pickup twins had the same practice, the GMC with no-nonsense round gauges; the Chevrolet with a car-like horizontal speedometer and idiot lights. Seems like a lot of trouble to differentiate the two, given that they were made on the same assembly line…why not just give both the same dash, and gauges? Nobody in that era bought a pickup for anything but necessity. And the gauges would bespeak VALUE. On either brand; on both brands.

Finally…has the crew-cab configuration finally surpassed the standard cab? And four-wheel-drive outselling conventional? My, oh my…except in specific instances, methinks the crue cab is a WASTE. Space that could go into the load box, instead in a seat hardly ever used.

If you’re hauling rug-rats you’d get better value with a car for it – even if it means multiple vehicles.

GMC did have a “Fleet Special” model available ~1957-59. It was basically a Chevrolet, with a Chevrolet dash, single headlights, Chevrolet hood with a stick-on logo instead of the one in the hole. It came only as a stepside, but without the steps. Had the Chevy speedometer, but with a GMC logo instead of the bowtie.
They were mostly for… fleets. They were mostly used up & thrown away & are difficult to find these days.

My back seat rarely has butts on it, but that doesn’t mean it’s unused. I sought and bought a crewcab specifically to have extra dry lockable storage. Someday I may well even pull out the seat, and build some racks or storage boxes.

The original Hydramatic really was a four speed. Because it used a fluid coupling and not a torque converter, it needed four gears. A fluid coupling does not allow any torque multiplication, like a torque converter or a slipping clutch, hence first gear in a HM is quite low. And shifts are quite abrupt, almost mechanical in feel. But that all made the HM very efficient.

The later evolutions of the HM (Dual Range 1952; Jetaway 1955) still had four gears, but were a bit more refined. The “Slim Jim” Roto-Hydramatic did only have three gears, and was a lemon.

The “modern” Turbo-Hydramatic first appeared in 1965, and used a torque converter and it had three speeds. That’s what you’re thinking of.

Yeah, yeah, and in other news, a 2012 Corolla is huge-ass compared to a Ye Olde Corolla. Again the same fallacy comparing apples to oranges just because a company decides that apples sell better and dubs all its oranges (and lemons) `apples’. If people prefer pickups with crew cabs and long beds now, that doesn’t mean regular cab short bed pickups have grown larger, its just that people don’t want them.

Go to my facebook page and check out the pics of my just finished 56 gmc 100 deluxe longbed step side. 327ci 350 trans. IFS, 4 link nova rear. rolled and pleated interior. satin black with a gloss candy blue top and half dash. Not your typical see at every car show like its chevy counterpart.

I happen to prefer the 55 – 59 GMC front end far more than the Chevrolet’s. It’s more truck like and when you know the real difference under the hood and small details, it just is that much more appealing.

Thanks for an interesting article and discussion, gents. I’m thinking about picking up a 56 GMC. I like the homely/tough looking face on these trucks. I also like A10 Warthogs, 1951-1953 Ford F1s, 51 Buicks, and P51 Mustangs. Give me an outrageous and homely grill with a tough attitude any day. For me, the more ludicrous the American grill the better. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, I guess.